It is a product nobody wants to think about, bought out of obligation or caution, and never out of desire. The video therefore does not have to seduce: it has to make things clear.
The video sells understanding
That is the only angle that works over time.
Nobody enjoys comparing policies. What people are looking for is to know what is covered, what is not, and what happens the day something occurs.
The subjects that hold attention are therefore explanatory: the difference between two levels of cover, what an excess means, why a premium rises, what a claim changes on the next contract.
The product appears as a consequence of the explanation, never as its starting point.
Fear is the wrong register
That is the most frequent mistake, and it backfires.
A video dramatising an accident provokes immediate rejection: people close it, because they do not want to think about it.
What works instead is the practical, calm register: here is what happens, here is what to do, here is how long it takes.
The difference is measured in watch time, and it is clear.
The claim is the moment that counts
That is where an insurer's reputation is decided, and it is what videos never show.
Three kinds of content are worth more than all the advertising in the category.
The procedure on the day of a loss: who to call first, what to photograph, what not to throw away, in what order.
The real processing time, explained by somebody working in the claims department.
And the account of a handled case, with the agreement of the person concerned, including the points of friction.
That last format needs serious approval, and it is worth asking for.
The regulatory layer is real
That is what distinguishes this category from all the others.
Insurance advice is a regulated activity: an unlicensed person cannot recommend a product suited to a particular situation.
Four practical prohibitions. Never say "take this policy". Never quote a price, a premium or a condition from memory. Never compare two insurers by name. And never let a commissioned video look like a spontaneous opinion.
The applicable rules depend on the product and the province, and are checked with the compliance team and a lawyer before publication, never after.
Quebec is a market apart
That is a structural point, not a translation nuance.
The regime applicable to certain covers differs there, the vocabulary is not the same, and neither are the dominant players.
A translated national campaign therefore produces videos that ring false and sometimes describe a situation that does not exist locally.
Plan a separate version, written on the spot, and have it reviewed by compliance in the same way as the English version.
What the video can do, and what it cannot
| Element | What remains possible | What is ruled out |
|---|---|---|
| A policy | Explaining where to read the cover | Summarising the exclusions |
| A claim | Showing the steps of a declaration | Promising a payout |
| A price | Quoting a public price | Comparing with no source |
What is always said on screen
That the cover depends on the policy taken out and that only the contractual documentation is authoritative, to be confirmed with an insurance professional.
What is masked in every shot
A policy number, an address, a plate, a named document. One badly cleaned frame is enough to publish personal data.
The creator to choose
Two criteria, and audience is not one of them.
Somebody able to explain without over-simplifying, because a wrong explanation is worse than no explanation.
And somebody willing to accept a strict frame: approved script, no improvisation, disclosures included. It is less free work than elsewhere, and it is priced accordingly.
